HSC Rejects the "Plausibility" Standard in 12(b)(6) Motions and Confirms a Cause of Action for Wrongful Foreclosure

In Reyes-Toledo II, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the “plausibility” standard that the US Supreme Court announced in Twombly/Igbal.

As to the first issue, this court has never adopted the Twombly/Iqbal “plausibility” pleading standard, and we now expressly reject it. We reaffirm that in Hawaiʻi state courts, the traditional “notice” pleading standard governs. This provides citizen access to the courts and to justice.

The Court went on to confirm that a homeowner need not wait until a foreclosure is executed to have a cause of action to bring suit against the foreclosing party for wrongful foreclosure.

9th Circuit allows mislabeling class action to proceed

Plaintiff alleged that she purchased the bread crumbs by relying on information contained on the face of the label that the product contained “0g Trans Fat per serving.” Plaintiff further alleged that contrary to the claim on the label, the bread crumbs “contained artificial trans fats, and caused heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and death.”

ICA Rules Exclusive Remedy Provision found in HRS § 103D-704 does not Bar Suits Between Competing Bidders

Addressing tortious interference with contractual relationship and tortious interference with prospective business advantage at the Department of Transportation, the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's (Alii Security Systems, Inc.) claims against its closest competing bidder, Professional Security Consultants, Inc. 

A private tort claim between competing bidders does not fit into any of those categories [referring to HRS §§ 103D-701 - 703], and it does not appear that the statutory protest proceedings provide an adequate means of resolving claims between competing bidders or that the chief procuring officer would even have jurisdiction to hear such a
claim at all.

Alii Security Systems v. Professional Security Consultants (CAAP-13-0002936)

Take away: if you have evidence that a competing bidder slandered your company to a state agency/contractor, you may have a claim. Additionally, this claim should not be barred by bid protest time limits.